***Energy Efficiency Advantage***

HSR K2 Solve Oil Dependence/Reduce Emissions

Even with use of fossil fuels-HSR significantly decreases dependence on oil and GHG emissions─

Energy mix: High-speed rail is the only available mode of long-distance travel that currently is not dependent on motor fuels. High-speed rail is powered by electricity, which is not without environmental problems depending on its source (see table 2). If it is powered by electricity generated from fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas that discharge harmful greenhouse gas emissions, then its environmental benefits are limited. However, electricity is generally considered an improvement over petroleum generated power and provides a crucial advantage as the United States aims to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and parts of the Keystone Corridor (connecting Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia) are electrified. Most other conventional passenger trains in America operate on freight rail lines and are powered by diesel fuel. Energy planning needs to be a part of the planning for high-speed rail to ensure the reduction of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants. Even with the current energy mix that includes fossil fuel sources, however, high-speed rail can yield significant environmental benefits. A recent study by the University of Pennsylvania (2011) found that a new high-speed line in the Northeast Corridor, powered by electricity from the current energy mix, would divert nearly 30 million riders from cars and planes, attract 6 million new riders, and still reduce car emissions of carbon monoxide by more than 3 million tons annually. The system would also result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions if the energy mix were shifted to low carbon emitting sources.

HSR K2 Solve Oil Dependence

Peak oil and post-recession recovery mean US oil dependence is rising – HSR is critical to relieve US oil dependence, and it’s the only viable method of transportation

HSR K2 Solve Oil Dependence

Now is key, other countries already use the HSR and it has proven to reduce congestion and oil dependency.

HSR K2 Solve Oil Dependence

Investing in High Speed Railroads spurs job creation, helps energy efficiency, and eliminates US oil dependency.

HSR K2 Clean Energy JOBS

Furthermore, HSR generates hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs

William Millar, December 14^th, 2010, president, American Public Transportation Association, “We must continue to invest,” http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2010/12/highspeed-rail-political-footb.php#1820909

APTA recently conducted a travel survey and found that nearly two-thirds of adults (62 percent) said they would definitely or probably use high-speed rail service for leisure or business travel if it were an option. In most political circles, garnering nearly two-thirds support for a forward-thinking vision like high-speed rail would be considered a landslide. At this critical time, we must keep our focus on the goal to provide the transportation options demanded by the traveling public and in doing so prime the pumps of America’s economic engines. While high-speed rail projects in states such as Wisconsin and Ohio will not move forward at this time, it is encouraging that states such as California, Washington, Illinois and New York have pursued the redirected funds and will put them to good use. In fact, 13 corridors are moving forward, while only two have been deferred. These projects will produce new passenger rail networks that benefit the economy, create and maintain construction and manufacturing jobs, spur domestic business growth, and stimulate economic development in neighborhoods around the new stations. Redirecting funding away from vital transportation projects with far-reaching benefits may result in marginal savings in the short term, however, the jobs and economic activity generated by HSIPR investments yield far more positive impacts on the economy in the long run. Reducing the national deficit is important, however, taxes collected from high-speed rail infrastructure construction and related projects will generate desperately needed state, local and federal tax revenues – breathing life into struggling economies and paying down the deficit while creating good paying jobs that improve the nation’s infrastructure. Continuing to invest in high-speed rail ensures a good return on the taxpayer dollar because it addresses the critical forward-looking mobility needs of Americans by adding much needed capacity to our already overburdened transportation network, in doing so we will create hundreds of thousands of new forward-looking, clean-energy jobs in America.

Impact Ext. Oil Dependence  War

Oil Shocks and depends guarantee great power wars─

Klare 5-10-12. Michael T Klare, Five Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies “Energy wars heat up” [http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/climate_wars_heat_up/]

All of these disputes have one thing in common: the conviction of ruling elites around the world that the possession of energy assets — especially oil and gas deposits — is essential to prop up national wealth, power, and prestige. This is hardly a new phenomenon. Early in the last century, Winston Churchill was perhaps the first prominent leader to appreciate the strategic importance of oil. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he converted British warships from coal to oil and then persuaded the cabinet to nationalize the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the forerunner of British Petroleum (now BP). The pursuit of energy supplies for both industry and war-fighting played a major role in the diplomacy of the period between the World Wars, as well as in the strategic planning of the Axis powers during World War II. It also explains America’s long-term drive to remain the dominant power in the Persian Gulf that culminated in the first Gulf War of 1990-91 and its inevitable sequel, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The years since World War II have seen a variety of changes in the energy industry, including a shift in many areas from private to state ownership of oil and natural gas reserves. By and large, however, the industry has been able to deliver ever-increasing quantities of fuel to satisfy the ever-growing needs of a globalizing economy and an expanding, rapidly urbanizing world population. So long as supplies were abundant and prices remained relatively affordable, energy consumers around the world, including most governments, were largely content with the existing system of collaboration among private and state-owned energy leviathans. But that energy equation is changing ominously as the challenge of fueling the planet grows more difficult. Many of the giant oil and gas fields that quenched the world’s energy thirst in years past are being depleted at a rapid pace. The new fields being brought on line to take their place are, on average, smaller and harder to exploit. Many of the most promising new sources of energy — like Brazil’s “pre-salt” petroleum reserves deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, Canadian tar sands, and American shale gas — require the utilization of sophisticated and costly technologies. Though global energy supplies are continuing to grow, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past and are continually falling short of demand. All this adds to the upward pressure on prices, causing anxiety among countries lacking adequate domestic reserves (and joy among those with an abundance). The world has long been bifurcated between energy-surplus and energy-deficit states, with the former deriving enormous political and economic advantages from their privileged condition and the latter struggling mightily to escape their subordinate position. Now, that bifurcation is looking more like a chasm. In such a global environment, friction and conflict over oil and gas reserves — leading to energy conflicts of all sorts — is only likely to increase. Looking, again, at April’s six energy disputes, one can see clear evidence of these underlying forces in every case. South Sudan is desperate to sell its oil in order to acquire the income needed to kick-start its economy; Sudan, on the other hand, resents the loss of oil revenues it controlled when the nation was still united, and appears no less determined to keep as much of the South’s oil money as it can for itself. China and the Philippines both want the right to develop oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea, and even if the deposits around Scarborough Shoal prove meager, China is unwilling to back down in any localized dispute that might undermine its claim to sovereignty over the entire region. Egypt, although not a major energy producer, clearly seeks to employ its oil and gas supplies for maximum political and economic advantage — an approach sure to be copied by other small and mid-sized suppliers. Israel, heavily dependent on imports for its energy, must now turn elsewhere for vital supplies or accelerate the development of disputed, newly discovered offshore gas fields, a move that could provoke fresh conflict with Lebanon, which says they lie in its own territorial waters. And Argentina, jealous of Brazil’s growing clout, appears determined to extract greater advantage from its own energy resources, even if this means inflaming tensions with Spain and Great Britain. And these are just some of the countries involved in significant disputes over energy. Any clash with Iran — whatever the motivation — is bound to jeopardize the petroleum supply of every oil-importing country, sparking a major international crisis with unforeseeable consequences. China’s determination to control its offshore hydrocarbon reserves has pushed it into conflict with other countries with offshore claims in the South China Sea, and into a similar dispute with Japan in the East China Sea. Energy-related disputes of this sort can also be found in the Caspian Sea and in globally warming, increasingly ice-free Arctic regions. The seeds of energy conflicts and war sprouting in so many places simultaneously suggest that we are entering a new period in which key state actors will be more inclined to employ force — or the threat of force — to gain control over valuable deposits of oil and natural gas. In other words, we’re now on a planet heading into energy overdrive.

Warming is Real-Environmental Impacts

Warming is happening – Sea ice, Glaciers, Ice Sheets, and Tropical Regions.

Hansen ‘9, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University (James, December, Storms of My Grandchildren, 164-166)

In addition to paleoclimate data, my talk covered ongoing obser­vations of five phenomena, all of which imply that an appropriate initial target should be no higher than 350 ppm. In brief, here are the five observations.(1) The area of Arctic sea ice has been declining faster than mod­els predicted. The end-of-summer sea ice area was 40 percent less in 2007 than in the late 1970s when accurate satellite measurements began. Continued growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide surely will result in an ice-free end-of-summerArctic within several decades, with detrimental effects on wildlife and indigenous people. It is difficult to imagine how the Greenland ice sheet could survive if Arctic sea ice is lost entirely in the warm season. Retention of warm season sea ice likely requiresrestoration of the planet's energy balance. At present our best estimate is there is about 0.5 watt per square meter more energy coming into the planet than is being emitted to space as heat radiation. A reduction of carbon dioxide amount from the current 387 ppm to 350 ppm, all other things being unchanged, would increase outgoing radiation by 0.5 watt, restoring planetary energy balance. (2) Mountain glaciers are disappearing all over the world. If business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions continue, most of the glaciers will be gone within fifty years. Rivers originating in glacier regions provide fresh water for billions of people. If the glaciers disappear, there will be heavy snowmelt and floods in the spring, but many dry rivers in the late summer and fall. The melting of glaciers is proceeding rapidly at current atmospheric composition. Probably the best we can hope is that the restoration of the planet's energy balance may halt glacier recession.(3) The Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are each losing mass at more than 100 cubic kilometers per year, and sea level is rising at more than 3 centimeters per decade. Clearly the ice sheets are unstable with the present climate forcing. Ice shelves around Antarctica are melting rapidly. It is difficult to say how far carbon dioxide must be reduced to stabilize the ice sheets, but clearly 387 ppm is too much.(4) Data show that subtropical regions have expanded poleward by 4 degrees of latitude on average. Such expansion is an expected effect of global warming, but the change has been faster than predicted. Dry regions have expandedin the southern United States, the Mediterranean, and Australia. Fire frequency and area in the western United States have increased by 300 percent over the past several decades. Lake Powell and Lake Mead are now only half full. Climate change is a major cause of these regional shifts, althoughforest management practices and increased usage of freshwater aggravate the resulting problems.(5) Coral reefs, where a quarter of all marine biological species are located, are suffering from multiple stresses, with two of the most important stresses, ocean acidification and warming surface water, caused by increasing carbon dioxide. As carbon dioxide in the air increases, the ocean dissolves some of the carbon dioxide, becoming more acidic. This makes it more difficult for animals with carbonate shells or skeletons to survive—indeed, sufficiently acidic water dissolves carbonates. Ongoing studies suggest that coral reefs would have a better chance of surviving modern stresses if carbon dioxide were reduced to less than 350 ppm.I am often asked: If we want to maintain Holocene-like climate, why should the target carbon dioxide not be close to the preindus­trial amount, say 300 ppm or 280 ppm? The reason, in part, is that there are other climate forcings besides carbon dioxide, and we do not expect those to return to preindustrial levels. There is no plan to remove all roadways, buildings, and other human-made effects on the planet's surface. Nor will we prevent all activities that produce aerosols. Until we know all forcings and understand their net effect, it is premature to be more specific than "less than 350 ppm," and it is unnecessary for policy purposes. It will take time to turn carbon dioxide around and for it to begin to approach 350 ppm. By then, if we have been making appropriate measurements, our knowledge should be much improved and we will have extensive empirical ev­idence on real-world changes. Also our best current estimate for the planet's mean energy imbalance over the past decade, thus averaged over the solar cycle, is about +0.5 watt per square meter. Reducing carbon dioxide to 350 ppm would increase emission to space 0.5 watt per square meter, restoring the planet's energy balance, to first approximation.

Warming is Anthropogenic

Warming is anthropogenic

Lichter, Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, 2008

[Dr. S. Robert Lichter, April 24 2008, Statistical Assessment Service, “Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change”, ]

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change. The survey, which was conducted for STATS by Harris Interactive®, also found increased concern among climate scientists since the Gallup organization asked them many of the same questions in 1991. Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request. Major Findings Scientists agree that humans cause global warming Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century. Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.Scientists still debate the dangers A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.” A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.) Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous. Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes. A need to know moreOverall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years. Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence. Climate scientists are skeptical of the mediaOnly 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.)  Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable. Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it “very reliable” and 38% as somewhat reliable. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie “The Day After Tomorrow” or Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” as very reliable.  Are climate scientists being pressured to deny or advance global warming? Five percent of climate scientists say they have beenpressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors at work. Just three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors. Changing scientific opinion In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union. We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistentlyshifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming.Among the changes: In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today. In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence “substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming,” compared tothree out of four (74%) today. The proportion of those who see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius has increased from 47% to 56% since 1991. The proportion of scientists who have a great deal of confidence in our understanding of the human-induced sources of global climate change rose from 22% in 1991 to 29% in 2007. Similarly, the proportion voicing confidence in our understanding of the archeological climate evidence rose from20% to 32%. Despite these expressions of uncertainty, however, the proportion which rating the chances at 50-50 or better that the role of human behavior will be settled in the near future rose from 47% in 1991 to 69% in 2007. 

Warming is Antrhopogenic

Data proves we’re right

Miranda et al 11 – Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Nicholas School of the Environment, Children’s Environmental Health Initiative, Duke University

(Marie, with Douglas Hastings, Associate in Research, Nicholas School of the Environment, Children’s Environmental Health Initiative, Duke University, Joseph Aldy, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, and William Schlesinger, President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, “The Environmental Justice Dimensions of Climate Change,” Environmental Justice vol 4 no 1, 2011, pg 17-25, dml)

The correlations between predicted temperature change and our measures of vulnerability indicate that developing nations do, in fact, face a higher degree of exposure to negative impacts of temperature change. This increased temperature burden on already vulnerable nations could lead to crop failures, slowing of economic development, and even political turmoil. The negative effects of temperature change could lead to particularly dire consequences for LICUS and African nations, all of which move away from the optimum temperature between 2009 and 2075. In addition, our use of a ‘‘V-shaped’’ scale for temperature impacts may actually underestimate increases in temperature for countries that are already far warmer than optimum. If the impacts of temperature on human welfare follow a true U-shaped curve, then very warm nations will be affected even more severely by future climate warming. Furthermore, our analysis of predicted temperature change for multiple time periods suggests that the unequal distribution of temperature impacts will persist over the next century. In fact, our forecasted distribution actually becomes more disparate moving from 2033 to 2099.

Warming  Extinction

Positive feedbacks will make the entire Earth uninhabitable

Hansen ‘9, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University (James, December, Storms of My Grandchildren, 236)

The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can pre­dict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin. Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane hydrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warm­ing. After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the run­away greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.58 Mb.

Share with your friends: